Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
SF01
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:30 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Poland
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:21 pm 
 

Could anyone explain me, why Nightwish Amaranth single has 4 (literally: FOUR) entries?
4 separate entries for ONE release?
Madness, I say!

Top
 Profile  
Derigin
Anthropophagus

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:25 am
Posts: 2716
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:30 pm 
 

Well, allow me to break it down for you:

1) Amaranth DVD appears to be a video including songs and extra behind the scenes videos. Acceptable on its own.

2) Amaranth (Part 1) and (Part 2) appear to be two different singles, both with different tracklistings and mixing. If that's the case, each would be acceptable on its own.

3) The only one that is a bit suspect is the 2008 radio edit single/promo. That one could be put in the additional notes of (Part 1), in large part because its the minimal, radio-edit version.

We accept separate releases when there's enough of a music/mixing/tracklisting difference between the releases to warrant it. Amaranth DVD, Amaranth (Part 1) and (Part 2) all appear to fit that. (Part 2) is not simply a re-release of (Part 1). The only one that is marginally suspect is the 2008 single, which I would be more than glad to look into. Just because a release shares the same name and some of the same tracks as other releases does not immediately warrant its amalgamation. We really don't care if there's four or forty-four singles named "Amaranth," so long as they fit what we consider a valid separate release as explained above.

Consider this thread closed.

Top
 Profile  
Derigin
Anthropophagus

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:25 am
Posts: 2716
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:48 pm 
 

Actually, I'll add something else quick. You've had issues before with putting forward concerns and complaints about information you think is incorrect, but turns out to be the contrary. This is particularly true for well-known bands. Do you not think that the information for those bands might most likely be true, given that they are famous bands users have spent a lot of time on?

Please stop sending in multiple reports, by the way. One is enough.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group